Barclays Bank Plc v Ente Nazionale Di Previdenza Ed Assistenza Dei Medici E Degli Odontoiatri

Barclays Bank Plc v Ente Nazionale Di Previdenza Ed Assistenza Dei Medici E Degli Odontoiatri

The Milan and London proceedings did not involve the same cause of action or objet as required by Article 27 of the Judgments Regulation; the English court was not bound to stay its proceedings. The judge properly exercised discretion not to stay under Article 28. Granting summary judgment for breach of the jurisdiction clauses did not infringe the principle of mutual trust between Member State courts. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Barclays Bank Plc; Defendant/appellant: Ente Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza dei Medici e degli Odontoiatri (ENPAM)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order on Summary Judgment and Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Summary Judgment, Brussels Regulation, Mutual Trust Between Member States, Tort Claims in Contractual Context
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Commercial Law Jurisdiction Clauses Summary Judgment Brussels Regulation Mutual Trust Between Member States Tort Claims in Contractual Context

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank Plc

Claimant/respondent

Ente Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza dei Medici e degli Odontoiatri (ENPAM)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order on Summary Judgment and Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English and Milan proceedings involve the same cause of action under Article 27 of the Judgments Regulation
  2. 2 Whether the English court was bound or should exercise discretion to stay proceedings under Articles 27 or 28 of the Judgments Regulation
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment in favour of Barclays infringes the principle of mutual trust between Member State courts

Ratio Decidendi

The Milan and London proceedings did not involve the same cause of action or objet as required by Article 27 of the Judgments Regulation; the English court was not bound to stay its proceedings. The judge properly exercised discretion not to stay under Article 28. Granting summary judgment for breach of the jurisdiction clauses did not infringe the principle of mutual trust between Member State courts. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for Barclays Bank Plc stands; no stay of English proceedings